Shiv Narayan Chaudhari v. CWT

108 ITR 104High Court1977#16515 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Shiv Narayan Chaudhari v. CWT

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 814/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Krishna Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Ms .Vasanti Patel.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…owned by more than one person. The above decision of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 1039 (Mum), also referred and relied upon other decisions i.e. i) CIT Vrs. Aravinda Reddy 120 ITR 46 (SC), ii) Shiv Narayan Chaudhari V. CWT 108 ITR 104 (Allahabad), iii) Smt. Kulwanti D. Alreja Vrs. ITO (Bom) and iv) Abdul Rehman Vrs. CIT 12 ITR 302 (Lahore) , wherein it was held that shared interest in the property does not amount to ownership of the property. 8.3 Now the only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner of residential house/flat at Goa. The legislature…

N.RAVI ARUMUGAVELAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2888/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2888/Chny2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-2016. Shri. N. Ravi Arumugavelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. P. Krishnan & Associates, Cas, International Taxation Ward 2(1) New No.20, 2Nd Street, Bsnl Building, Raghavan Colony, Ashok Nagar, Greams Road, Chennai 600 083. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Akzpr 9452J]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar Dora, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 54F

…ssee had invested sale consideration in the construction of one residential property, as it has got only one common passage and unity of structure placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudari vs. CWT, 108 ITR 104, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT vs. S.D. Jadeja, 283 ITR 45, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil, 325 ITR 415, Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Najima Nizar, 197 ITR 0258 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153. Upon considering the submissio…

MR.HEMANT DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2949/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2949/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) In The Matter Of:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 50cSection 54

…f the Revenue that the flats were on different floors and were 'self-contained residential units" but overruled the same on the ground that all of them were purchased in the assessee's name." In the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhari vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax 108 ITR 104(All) (1997) it was held by Allahabad High Court "that a house may consist of 8 I.T.A. No. 2949/Mum/2018 Mr. Hemant Doshi more than one self-contained dwelling unit and that if there is unity of structure, the mere fact that such self- contained dwelling units are occupied by different persons will not make that house into several houses. In the c…

ASHOK G. CHAUHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1309/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm (Division Bench) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27Section 54Section 54F

…ion of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 9 I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 Ashok G. Chauhan 1039 (Mum), also referred and relied upon other decisions i.e. i) CIT Vrs. Aravinda Reddy 120 ITR 46 (SC), ii) Shiv Narayan Chaudhari V. CWT 108 ITR 104 (Allahabad), iii) Smt. Kulwanti D. Alreja Vrs. ITO (Bom) and iv) Abdul Rehman Vrs. CIT 12 ITR 302 (Lahore) , wherein it was held that shared interest in the property does not amount to ownership of the property. 8.3 Now the only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner of residential house/flat at Goa. The legislature h…

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…support the assessee relied upon the following judicial decisions:- i) CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukuminiamma, (2011)196 Taxman 87 (Kar) ii) CIT v. Gita Duggal (2013)30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi HC) iii) K.G. Vyas, 16 ITD 195(Bom-Trib) iv) Shiv Narayan Choudhari, (1981)108 ITR 104 (All) v) B.B. Sarkar, 132 ITR 150 (Cal) vi) Col. H.H. Sir Harinder Singh, 83 ITR 416 vii) Fulwanti C. Rathod v. ITO, Mumbai Tribunal. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee is claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act in respect of two independent residential house situated at different locations, one is in Parsik Hills at Belapur and the other is at N…